Not so sure about that. The executive has the power to do many things without H of C votes. Just because they had a vote on it before, does not mean they have to do the inverse of the vote to retract article 50.
Sounds like a matter for the Supreme Court to weigh in on, but since legislative approval was required to issue A50, I would imagine whether the government now has the power to rescind it (or request rescinding or pausing it at least) would depend on what power the Act conferred upon the government. Since the text was so short and was explicitly about being able to notify the EU of the UK's intention to withdraw, I would not be entirely surprised if a strict interpretation would be that no other power was given, including a power to rescind said intention was given. It did say the PM 'may notify' of the intention in the Act, so I guess maybe you could interpret it since whether to do so was still in the discretion of the PM then suspending or withdrawing the intention would be too, but as a lay person that looks convoluted.
Edit: And of course the legal case which determined parliament had to confer the power to notify the EU via A50 to the government had both parties accept that A50 was irrevocable. Now, I believe even in that case it was noted that other opinions exist - it may well be revocable - but I wonder if that fact of its irrevocability was a factor in the decision that Parliament needed to grant the government the power in the first place, and therefore the same would need to happen in reverse unless explicitly stated. In matters of such import, would the courts be inclined to take broad interpretations of implied rules like that? Mr Meeks would be a better judge on that I am sure.
More to the point, whether the government thinks it has the power to do as suggested or not, I would think it highly likely someone with an opposing viewpoint would launch a case just as Miller did. No doubt these things can be expedited somewhat too, but it seems like yet further complications.
What, again? If they're going to revolt, get on with it. I wonder if May should seize the initiative and sack those not willing to give unqualified support - better than waiting for a steady trickle of resignations.
It's getting so bloody tiresome. This one involves people still in the Cabinet, but the fundamental issue remains the same in that May is saying she will or wants to do one thing and others keep threatening that she must back down, but if those involved are so opposed to her proposals then why keep her in place at all if she keeps making such awful proposals. There's no excuse for not acting if she is continually making such poor choices. Even if she backs down, why keep supporting someone who made so many bad calls that you have to keep threatening resignation to get her to do what you want.
Just go already, all of them. May cannot get something through either way without Labour help, which won't be forthcoming, so what are they even worried about in appearing to abandon her plans? Ok, no one wants to take on the job or is confident they will get the job, but that's not an excuse if her Brexit plans are apparently always so woeful.
So please, the Cabinet and others, just stop already.
Yes - the issue is now clear: a deal is only available if the end to the backstop is described in detail (e.g. "as soon as an indepdent body confirms that a technical solution is now feasible") but without a date. Ministers and MPs can accept that or not accept it, no need to prevaricate.
Labour doesn't have the backstop problem, because we want a permanent customs union anyway and think the wonderful trade deals with the US etc. are pie in the sky. It's a purely Tory issue, and they'd do us all a favour if they decided one way or the other.
Not so sure about that. The executive has the power to do many things without H of C votes. Just because they had a vote on it before, does not mean they have to do the inverse of the vote to retract article 50.
Sounds like a matter for the Supreme Court to weigh in on, but since legislative approval was required to issue A50, I would imagine whether the government now has the power to rescind it (or request rescinding or pausing it at least) would depend on what power the Act conferred upon the government. Since the text was so short and was explicitly about being able to notify the EU of the UK's intention to withdraw, I would not be entirely surprised if a strict interpretation would be that no other power was given, including a power to rescind said intention was given. It did say the PM 'may notify' of the intention in the Act, so I guess maybe you could interpret it since whether to do so was still in the discretion of the PM then suspending or withdrawing the intention would be too, but as a lay person that looks convoluted.
Edit: And of course the legal case which determined parliament had to confer the power to notify the EU via A50 to the government had both parties accept that A50 was irrevocable. Now, I believe even in that case it was noted that other opinions exist - it may well be revocable - but I wonder if that fact of its irrevocability was a factor in the decision that Parliament needed to grant the government the power in the first place, and therefore the same would need to happen in reverse unless explicitly stated. In matters of such import, would the courts be inclined to take broad interpretations of implied rules like that? Mr Meeks would be a better judge on that I am sure.
More to the point, whether the government thinks it has the power to do as suggested or not, I would think it highly likely someone with an opposing viewpoint would launch a case just as Miller did. No doubt these things can be expedited somewhat too, but it seems like yet further complications.
Legal interpretations are pretty complex for a Sunday evening!
Not so sure about that. The executive has the power to do many things without H of C votes. Just because they had a vote on it before, does not mean they have to do the inverse of the vote to retract article 50.
Sounds like a matter for the Supreme Court to weigh in on, but since legislative approval was required to issue A50, I would imagine whether the government now has the power to rescind it (or request rescinding or pausing it at least) would depend on what power the Act conferred upon the government. Since the text was so short and was explicitly about being able to notify the EU of the UK's intention to withdraw, I would not be entirely surprised if a strict interpretation would be that no other power was given, including a power to rescind said intention was given. It did say the PM 'may notify' of the intention in the Act, so I guess maybe you could interpret it since whether to do so was still in the discretion of the PM then suspending or withdrawing the intention would be too, but as a lay person that looks convoluted.
Edit: And of course the legal case which determined parliament had to confer the power to notify the EU via A50 to the government had both parties accept that A50 was irrevocable. Now, I believe even in that case it was noted that other opinions exist - it may well be revocable - but I wonder if that fact of its irrevocability was a factor in the decision that Parliament needed to grant the government the power in the first place, and therefore the same would need to happen in reverse unless explicitly stated. In matters of such import, would the courts be inclined to take broad interpretations of implied rules like that? Mr Meeks would be a better judge on that I am sure.
More to the point, whether the government thinks it has the power to do as suggested or not, I would think it highly likely someone with an opposing viewpoint would launch a case just as Miller did. No doubt these things can be expedited somewhat too, but it seems like yet further complications.
Legal interpretations are pretty complex for a Sunday evening!
It's certainly more impenetrable pondering than my poor brain is prepared for at this hour.
I think just about everyone is fed up with Tory backbench threats of toppling Mrs May. I'll eat my hat if it happens in the near future.
MrsMay's response last weekend was "statement to parliament on Monday". This weekend "conference calls to cabinet for support on 15m notice". She's starting to topple..
Boris's mouthpiece. I would suggest a wait and see position on TM and the vnoc.
Maybe it won't even get to VONC. If the Cabinet threaten to resign en-mass it's hard to see how she comes back from that...
In those circumstances the cabinet would invite her to stand down. But be careful for what you wish for, if TM goes so will Brexit
Yes you are right. If the Tories defenestrate May now the government will implode and the Brexit process will collapse.
Hopefully, she has a letter primed and ready to go retracting article 50, after all she triggered this process. It is her mess and she should allow fresh leadership a stronger starting position for the good of the country!
And how could she do that.
Send the letter to the EU, just like the letter activating article 50, whether they accept it is another point but she screwed up royally instigating article 50 and then negotiating. The rest of the cabinet at the time were complicit in her incompetence and they doubled down having the 2017 GE. Fresh leadership could learn from May's mistakes and gain a better deal or not bother with Brexit at all.
The A50 was served after HOC approved it. So you would need HOC approval to withdraw it
Not so sure about that. The executive has the power to do many things without H of C votes. Just because they had a vote on it before, does not mean they have to do the inverse of the vote to retract article 50.
The legal basis of the UKSC decision was that A50 involved a change in the legal rights of UK citizens and thus requires an Act of Parliament. Brexiteers would certainly argue that rescinding A50 also involves a loss of rights to UK citizens. It would be interesting to see if the SC agreed; they may try and claim that since we have not left yet, no rights are involved.
Politically I am not sure the Government would be wise to even try to withdrawal A50 without the approval of Parliament. I don’t expect the ECJ to rule that A50 can be withdrawn as they always rule in line with the wishes of the Commission and the ability to withdraw would not favour them.
Comments
Labour doesn't have the backstop problem, because we want a permanent customs union anyway and think the wonderful trade deals with the US etc. are pie in the sky. It's a purely Tory issue, and they'd do us all a favour if they decided one way or the other.
Pleasant Brexit dreams to all.
Politically I am not sure the Government would be wise to even try to withdrawal A50 without the approval of Parliament. I don’t expect the ECJ to rule that A50 can be withdrawn as they always rule in line with the wishes of the Commission and the ability to withdraw would not favour them.